Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update for [0,100%] to [0,30%] #269

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 29, 2020
Merged

Conversation

dls-cipher
Copy link
Contributor

As per discussion in legal and PR terms.

As per discussion in legal and PR terms.
@sschiessl-bcp
Copy link
Collaborator

sschiessl-bcp commented Apr 7, 2020

Can you point to the discussion please?

Copy link
Contributor

@bitcrab bitcrab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

confirmed.

changing from [0,100%] to [0,30%] will help to convince asset owners that the tax are solidly limited to a small part of the fee.

Copy link
Collaborator

@sschiessl-bcp sschiessl-bcp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you point to the discussion to back this change please?

Reference: #194 (comment)

@abitmore abitmore dismissed sschiessl-bcp’s stale review May 29, 2020 21:29

Although it's ideal to have it, not a must imo.

@abitmore abitmore merged commit 72e3461 into bitshares:master May 29, 2020
@sschiessl-bcp
Copy link
Collaborator

I disagree with this change, as no one has adressed my concern.

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

@sschiessl-bcp I as the original author have agreed with the change. @bitcrab as representative of a large part of voters (imo) has agreed with the change. The PR concerns are clear: a platform usually won't charge a 100% fee. Nevertheless I'd like @dls-cipher to give more info about the legal concerns he mentioned too though.

@sschiessl-bcp
Copy link
Collaborator

sschiessl-bcp commented May 30, 2020

@sschiessl-bcp I as the original author have agreed with the change. @bitcrab as representative of a large part of voters (imo) has agreed with the change. The PR concerns are clear: a platform usually won't charge a 100% fee. Nevertheless I'd like @dls-cipher to give more info about the legal concerns he mentioned too though.

Neither the author or a representative can decide for the voters, simple as that (change happened after being voted in). Especially, since this upper bound has been addressed in review and decided for value 100%. If @bitcrab has enough influence he could provide proof on-chain for that.

Either way, for me this is a principle question, but I guess it's fine since this will likely receive "post-launch-approval" when the change is going live on mainnet simply by the fact that witnesses that support it won't be voted out.

I agree if there are any legal concerns it should be paused.

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

@sschiessl-bcp as I understand that you seek for procedural justice or even perfectness, in comparison, I concern more about whether the overall outcome is positive, which is another sort of perfectness. Since many voters aren't voting thoughtfully, in addition they make few efforts on improving the voting process (E.G. little feedback to changes), and education is hard, IMO focusing too much on the process rather than on the result may negatively impact overall progress, which would then negatively impact the value of the platform. It's just my thoughts though.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants